News & Analysis as of

Reversal Supreme Court of the United States

Fourth Circuit Reverses Preliminary Injunction in Transgender Student Rights Case; Adds its Two Cents

by Shipman & Goodwin LLP on

In March of 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States remanded the high profile transgender student rights case, Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. ex rel. Grimm, no 16-273, to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for...more

Lewis v. Clarke And The Failed Expedition To Secure Tribal Rights: SCOTUS Rules Against Tribal Employee Immunity

by Fisher Phillips on

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled yesterday that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply to employees who are sued in their individual capacities, even if the alleged wrongdoing occurs while the employee is acting...more

Supreme Court: District Court EEOC Subpoena Enforcement Decisions Subject to Abuse of Discretion

by Holland & Knight LLP on

The Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on April 3, 2017, in McLane Co., Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a case which presented the question of what the appropriate standard of appellate...more

Keep On Truckin’: Priority Rules Still Rule in Structured Dismissals

In 2015, Distressing Matters reported on the Third Circuit’s decision in In re Jevic Holding Corp., wherein that panel ruled that, in rare circumstances, bankruptcy courts may approve the distribution of settlement proceeds...more

Supreme Court Absolutely Affirms the Absolute Priority Rule

by Ward and Smith, P.A. on

The United States Supreme Court recently decided a case that impacts lenders and other creditors in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court may not approve a “structured dismissal” of...more

Supreme Court Limits Use of Structured Dismissals of Chapter 11 Cases

by Holland & Knight LLP on

In a 6-2 decision on March 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that bankruptcy courts may not approve a structured dismissal of a Chapter 11 case that provided for distributions of estate funds that do not follow...more

Supreme Court Bars Structured Dismissals of Bankruptcy Cases That Violate the Code’s Priority Distribution Scheme – Could it...

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

On March 22, 2017 the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling regarding the legality of structured dismissals of Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases that would make final distributions of estate assets to creditors in a manner...more

Supreme Court Limits EEOC Subpoena Power

by Fisher Phillips on

In a 7 to 1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that courts of appeals should largely defer to lower courts’ decisions when policing subpoenas issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). By...more

Yes, Virginia, there is a Code Priority Scheme: Supreme Court Strikes Down Structured Dismissals in Jevic

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

A potential threat to the Code’s priority scheme is the allowance of “structured dismissals,” which include a settlement as part of the dismissal of the chapter 11 case that would distribute estate assets in a manner that...more

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Securities Fraud Omissions Case

by Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court will resolve a critical question governing the scope of liability in securities fraud cases which has split the circuit courts to date. The case, Leidos Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System, No....more

Export of Single Component of Patented Combination Does Not Impose Liability Under § 271(f)(1)

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In reversing the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, an essentially unanimous Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the “supply of a single component of a multi-component invention for manufacture abroad does...more

U.S. Supreme Court Invalidates Non-Consensual Structured Dismissal Deviating from Bankruptcy Priority Scheme

by Jones Day on

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 22, 2017, in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., that without the consent of affected creditors, bankruptcy courts may not approve "structured dismissals" providing for distributions that...more

Absolute Priority Remains Absolute – US Supreme Court Holds Structured Dismissals Cannot Violate Priority Rules

by Dechert LLP on

In a highly anticipated bankruptcy opinion, the United States Supreme Court, in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., held that courts may not approve structured dismissals providing for distributions that deviate from the...more

Supreme Court Narrows Use of Structured Dismissals

by Miles & Stockbridge P.C. on

On March 22, 2017, in a 6-2 decision, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit and held that distributions made pursuant to a structured dismissal must follow the Bankruptcy Code’s priority rules unless the...more

"In SCA Hygiene, Supreme Court Rules Laches Not a Defense to Damages Within Statutory Period in Patent Cases"

In a 7-1 decision issued on March 21, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court held in SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC that laches cannot be invoked as a defense against a claim for damages in a patent...more

Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp.: Supreme Court Limits Patent Infringement Liability for Suppliers Under § 271(f)(1)

The Supreme Court in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp held that providing a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to patent infringement liability under 35 U.S.C. §...more

One is Not Enough – Infringement Liability under § 271(f)(1)

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., Slip Op. 14-1538 (Feb. 22, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to...more

Supreme Court Rules That Patent Infringement Liability Based On Supply Of "A Substantial Portion" Of The Components Of An...

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. to address whether the act of supplying from the United States a single commodity component of a multicomponent invention...more

Quantity - Not Quality - Matters in Assessing Liability for Patent Infringement under Section 271(f)(1)

by Bryan Cave on

In Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that, as a matter of law, “the supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention” from the United States does not trigger liability under Section...more

Supreme Court Decision Limits Patent Infringement Risk for Exporting a Single Component of a Multi-Component Invention

by McNair Law Firm, P.A. on

On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court held that there is no patent infringement when an entity supplies "a single component" from the United States for combination into "a multicomponent invention" outside the United...more

Supreme Court Limits Potential Liability for Overseas Patent Infringement

by Lathrop & Gage LLP on

Sale from the U.S. to overseas destination of a single component cannot violate § 271(f) - On February 22, the Supreme Court announced its latest unanimous decision in a patent case....more

The Song says 2 out of 3 Ain’t Bad; The Supreme Court says 1 is not “Substantial”

In Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. [14-1538] (February 22, 2017), the Supreme Court reversed a Federal Circuit decision that supplying a single component of a multi-component invention from the United States is an...more

Supreme Court Restricts the Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Patent Law for Exported Goods

by Morrison & Foerster LLP on

On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court in a landmark decision held that the supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to liability under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1). See...more

The Supreme Court Chooses Quantity over Quality – Supplying a Single Component of a Multicomponent Invention Does Not Constitute...

On February 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention qualifies as an infringing act under 35 USC §271(f)(1) of the U.S. Patent Act. In its...more

Supreme Court Addresses Scope of Patent Infringement Under Section 271(f)(1)

by Jones Day on

Section 271(f)(1) of the Patent Act provides that a party infringes a patent claim when it "supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention...more

82 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 4
Cybersecurity

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!